Is KAT an empty stats player?

[FNQ]

Putting a lot expectation and hate on a 2nd round pick aren’t we? I’m not saying those numbers proves he’s so good, I’m saying it proves he’s not empty. Monta was never the leader of the We Believe Warriors and once those leaders left and Steph showed up, they didn’t have anyone outside those two and their numbers weren’t worlds apart.

What does where he was drafted have anything to do with empty stats?

You citing numbers, in a thread about empty numbers.. does not prove anything!

Monta Ellis is like the patron saint of empty stats. If not him, then who? The guy would get 25 points on 22 shots, and his efficiency would mysteriously spike when the game was long since over.

They were worlds apart from the moment Steph joined the league

[AlexanderRight]

Putting a lot expectation and hate on a 2nd round pick aren’t we? I’m not saying those numbers proves he’s so good, I’m saying it proves he’s not empty. Monta was never the leader of the We Believe Warriors and once those leaders left and Steph showed up, they didn’t have anyone outside those two and their numbers weren’t worlds apart.

What does where he was drafted have anything to do with empty stats?

You citing numbers, in a thread about empty numbers.. does not prove anything!

Monta Ellis is like the patron saint of empty stats. If not him, then who? The guy would get 25 points on 22 shots, and his efficiency would mysteriously spike when the game was long since over.

They were worlds apart from the moment Steph joined the league

So it’s Monta’s fault that duo never did anything together even though Curry was the lottery pick/franchise guy and Monta was a 2nd rounder? Curry obviously grew into a better player, but let’s not revise history and pretend like their numbers were drastically different in the years they were playing together. Monta was 20PPG on 46% in GS. For every one guy that can do that there’s about a dozen who can’t do half that and not much anything else. I feel like there’s plenty of players to call career losers before Monta Ellis. Or are we just looking for a scapegoat for Curry’s early career team disappointments?

[FNQ]

So it’s Monta’s fault that duo never did anything together even though Curry was the lottery pick/franchise guy and Monta was a 2nd rounder? Curry obviously grew into a better player, but let’s not revise history and pretend like their numbers were drastically different in the years they were playing together. Monta was 20PPG on 46% in GS. For every one guy that can do that there’s about a dozen who can’t do half that and not much anything else. I feel like there’s plenty of players to call career losers before Monta Ellis. Or are we just looking for a scapegoat for Curry’s early career team disappointments?

No, its Monta's fault that he was a ball-stopping, inefficient chucker and no one else's. Again, citing draft status means nothing.

And you are basically proving why watching games is important, and how people can fall for *empty stats*. His peak efficiency as a go-to scorer was 53.6 TS%. He played no defense. The only time he ever helped a team win was one year, the post WE BELIEVE year, where he was our 3rd option.

Trying to make it about Curry is hilarious. That argument was one of the worst all time in Warriors board history, where 2 or 3 posters really believed Monta was the better player and cited things like FG% like you're doing.. just stop. He was one of the worst investments the W's made, the Bucks scrapped him, the Pacers scrapped him, the Mavs scrapped him, and he was out of the league at 31 years old.

Takes like yours are why the term empty stats exist. So when people just read boxscores a decade later, they can't rewrite history and pretend that Monta Ellis helped teams win.

[NoZoLakers]

I’m so sick of this term “empty stats”. It gets thrown around way too much as an automatic go to move to discredit a player. What exactly is an “empty stats” player? There can be empty stats for a single game, when a player is heavily padding in meaningless minutes during garbage time when the game is already out of hand. Sure. But over an entire season? No. If someone is putting up All Star numbers in the NBA over the course of multiple seasons, he’s an All Star player. It’s not “empty”. If he’s losing, chances are he’s on a sorry team. There’s a reason no one uses that term for players on good teams.

Dlo n Minn Wiggins is/were empty stats

[AlexanderRight]

So it’s Monta’s fault that duo never did anything together even though Curry was the lottery pick/franchise guy and Monta was a 2nd rounder? Curry obviously grew into a better player, but let’s not revise history and pretend like their numbers were drastically different in the years they were playing together. Monta was 20PPG on 46% in GS. For every one guy that can do that there’s about a dozen who can’t do half that and not much anything else. I feel like there’s plenty of players to call career losers before Monta Ellis. Or are we just looking for a scapegoat for Curry’s early career team disappointments?

No, its Monta's fault that he was a ball-stopping, inefficient chucker and no one else's. Again, citing draft status means nothing.

And you are basically proving why watching games is important, and how people can fall for *empty stats*. His peak efficiency as a go-to scorer was 53.6 TS%. He played no defense. The only time he ever helped a team win was one year, the post WE BELIEVE year, where he was our 3rd option.

Trying to make it about Curry is hilarious. That argument was one of the worst all time in Warriors board history, where 2 or 3 posters really believed Monta was the better player and cited things like FG% like you're doing.. just stop. He was one of the worst investments the W's made, the Bucks scrapped him, the Pacers scrapped him, the Mavs scrapped him, and he was out of the league at 31 years old.

Takes like yours are why the term empty stats exist. So when people just read boxscores a decade later, they can't rewrite history and pretend that Monta Ellis helped teams win.

Curry was puttin up about 17PPG on 47% in his time with Monta. Monta was puttin up about 23PPG on 44% in his time with Curry. Neither of them play defense. You wanna say Curry was still better even during that time? I won’t refute. But to pretend as if Ellis was a cancerous black hole holding the team back while Curry was this shining beacon during that time is revisionist history. They didn’t have any help. That’s why they lost. Once they got some help and Curry learned how to dribble after Ellis left then team was on the rise. Calling Ellis empty stats career loser off his 18PPG 45%FG career isn’t fair. It sounds more like a convenient narrative that people pick and choose when to apply when it’s time to cherry pick which players to prop up and which players to shoot down.

[FNQ]

Curry was puttin up about 17PPG on 47% in his time with Monta. Monta was puttin up about 23PPG on 44% in his time with Curry. Neither of them play defense. You wanna say Curry was still better even during that time? I won’t refute.

Good, because its true. Curry was a better player from moment 1 and it was clear on the court.

But to pretend as if Ellis was a cancerous black hole holding the team back while Curry was this shining beacon during that time is revisionist history. They didn’t have any help. That’s why they lost. Once they got some help and Curry learned how to dribble after Ellis left then team was on the rise.

The team went on the rise the second Monta left, leaving behind his constant negative BPM, RPM, RAPM, etc. This was of course the non-cancerous Monta declared that he and Curry couldn't play together, and after Monta lied about how he injured himself.

Calling Ellis empty stats career loser off his 18PPG 45%FG career isn’t fair. It sounds more like a convenient narrative that people pick and choose when to apply when it’s time to cherry pick which players to prop up and which players to shoot down.

Not fair? Lol he was a disappointment everywhere he went. He had 1 good season where he helped the W's win (or anyone win) when he still tried defensively. He was a bad player, a bad teammate, a bad leader, and he won nothing. Want to know how I know this? Because literally all you can cite is FG%, which means *nothing*. His legacy was that he was an underrated fantasy asset and nothing else. He is quite possibly the best example of empty stats since the millennium turned and you just repeating his extremely average FG% doesn't change that, sorry. Its a horrible hill to die on.

[dodongo]

Is KAT an empty stats player?

Always puts nice numbers but always leads his team into a lottery picks.

Lost to Jimmy's bench crew while Jimmy was in Minnesota.

I don't think he's an empty stats guy. His offense is legit. But he lacks portability, because on defense he needs to be next to a defensive anchor while being 7-feet. I think his impact could be unlocked playing next to someone like Ben Simmons or Draymond?

[brutalitops]

The lack of defense with him and russel is unreal.

Playing with guys like Ricky Rubio and Juancho hernangomez does help either.

KAT's played defense pretty well though last and this year, however since we've been overall **** awful in the last 18 months its largely ignored.

However he isnt good enough to cover Beasley/Dlo/Hermangomez poor defense, Your asking a guy who while has a Rep as a bad defender, who is a decent one, have an absolute horrific guard defense, And he has since they shipped Rubio out for the first time.

Slap Gobert there and Gobert probably covers a lot more for the holes, Slap in Bledsoe/Smart/Simmons And Kat suddenly isnt being exposed as much as any other center in the NBA.

Malik has the ability but drifts, I think Rubio needs to play a bit more and we still need to get to an acceptable level of defense before we win games. Squad is too talented offensively to be playing like this

[BlueSan]

Let us really evaluate those "empty" stats and make an objective decision, shall we?

First of all. What are the empty stats?
In my book they are stats, that look good on paper, but are actually upon closer expection bad. For example. 30 points scored but on a 8/30 Shooting etc...
Those are Empty stats for me.

So let us take a closer look at KAT

- 22PTs / game
- 46% FG
- 7.3/15.8 FG / game
- 37,5% 3PT shooting
- 1,5/4 3PTs / game
- 96% FT
- 6,0/6,3 FT / game
- 12,5 rebounds / game (4 of those are OF Rebounds)
- 4,3 assists / game
- 0,5 steals / game
- 2,8 blocks / game
- 2,5 TO/ game

You are absolutely insane if you think those are Empty stats.

[Quentin]

Seriously? KAT is the only big on this team and even he's not that big. The Wolves lack a logical roster and have for a long time. I've always said they need a big shot blocking, mean, bruising 4 or 5 to play next to KAT. KAT, imo, is a better 4 than a 5.

But they trot out guys like Hernangomez ( ) at the 4. That guy is incredibly soft and couldn't grab a board if he was the only one on the floor.

[Dual]

His defense this year has been good, and his offense is great as always. If he was in a team with a good constructed roster, he will be in the MVP race for sure. I have no doubt he can be the number 1 guy in a successful team, but Minnesota is a black hole that eats everything and everyone on it, sadly.

[Jadoogar]

As with most questions like this, i think it's a bit of both. Wolves are not a good team and haven't been decent aside from that one year with Butler. D'angelo is wildly overrated and they keep missing on draft picks.
That said, a true superstar should be able to get 40 wins. He screams Demarcus Cousins to me (member of another terrible team that never got 30 wins).

[Metallikid]

He's a perfect 3rd banana.

[Jadoogar]

Let us really evaluate those "empty" stats and make an objective decision, shall we?

First of all. What are the empty stats?
In my book they are stats, that look good on paper, but are actually upon closer expection bad. For example. 30 points scored but on a 8/30 Shooting etc...
Those are Empty stats for me.

So let us take a closer look at KAT

- 22PTs / game
- 46% FG
- 7.3/15.8 FG / game
- 37,5% 3PT shooting
- 1,5/4 3PTs / game
- 96% FT
- 6,0/6,3 FT / game
- 12,5 rebounds / game (4 of those are OF Rebounds)
- 4,3 assists / game
- 0,5 steals / game
- 2,8 blocks / game
- 2,5 TO/ game

You are absolutely insane if you think those are Empty stats.

Let's compare these to Demarcus Cousins in his 5th season
24ppg (48% Fg), 13 reb (3 off), 3.5 assists, 1.5 steals, 1.7 blocks

29 wins

[AbeVigodaLive]

As with most questions like this, i think it's a bit of both. Wolves are not a good team and haven't been decent aside from that one year with Butler. D'angelo is wildly overrated and they keep missing on draft picks.
That said, a true superstar should be able to get 40 wins. He screams Demarcus Cousins to me (member of another terrible team that never got 30 wins).

I can see why Cousins can be seen as a comparison. But I don't necessarily agree. Towns has been much more efficient than Cousins every single season.

Career FG%:
Cousins - 46%
Towns - 53%

Career 3FG%:
Cousins - 33%
Towns - 40%

Turnovers:
Cousins - 3.5
Towns - 2.5

In addition, Cousins caused problems on/off the court with his immaturity multiple times. Towns has been a model citizen... even if it comes across as a bit disingenuous with seemingly canned rehearsed comments. But I'd take the latter over the former every time.

[BallinBug]

As for the answer...I always hate the term "empty stats" for guys caught on bad teams. Kobe Bryant, between winning titles with Phil and Shaq and winning them with Phil and Pau, suddenly became "empty stats" because hey, his team really sucked. In reality he didn't get worse, his team did.

That said, if any modern star got tagged with it, I could see KAT being the guy. Very very skilled, but man does he lack the grit, the grr, the leadership, and of course, the defense.

The thing is, it always bugs me that people who really watch the games continue to watch the scoreboard as some sort of indicator of individual talent. It rarely is. Any single player can play no more than 1/5 of his team's minutes, and that is if he is Wilt and plays 48 min per game. KAT plays 32. So he'd playing maybe about 15% of his team's minutes? And somehow if they win or lose is supposed to be all about him and not the guy's playing the other 85% of the minutes? In fact for years now he's had a good On/Off +/-. Not LeBron good, But his team has been considerably better when he is on the floor. It's just that the rest of the team can't keep that going when he's not.

I think there's plenty of evidence that he is not a transformative superstar, nor a driven fighting winning personality that can set a tone for a whole franchise. But that doesn't make his stats empty. He matters for them. Just not enough.

What is this math. He plays 32 minutes. A game is 48 minutes long. That means he plays 66% of the game minutes. He's in the game 2/3rd of the time. That's enough time to get it done.

[wutevahung]

Name me a center would take the wolves to play off in the years besides the one when Jimmy was there.

[brutalitops]

Let us really evaluate those "empty" stats and make an objective decision, shall we?

First of all. What are the empty stats?
In my book they are stats, that look good on paper, but are actually upon closer expection bad. For example. 30 points scored but on a 8/30 Shooting etc...
Those are Empty stats for me.

So let us take a closer look at KAT

- 22PTs / game
- 46% FG
- 7.3/15.8 FG / game
- 37,5% 3PT shooting
- 1,5/4 3PTs / game
- 96% FT
- 6,0/6,3 FT / game
- 12,5 rebounds / game (4 of those are OF Rebounds)
- 4,3 assists / game
- 0,5 steals / game
- 2,8 blocks / game
- 2,5 TO/ game

You are absolutely insane if you think those are Empty stats.

Let's compare these to Demarcus Cousins in his 5th season
24ppg (48% Fg), 13 reb (3 off), 3.5 assists, 1.5 steals, 1.7 blocks

29 wins

Wait, are you saying Demarcus Cousins wasnt a good player? Demarcus was a **** beast in his 4/5/6th year and all the way till his achillies

Firstly, are you talking about his 4th or 5th season? 4th season he averaged 48% FG, his 5th season when they won 29 names he had 46%,

he also played 59 games, averaged 2 more turnovers, had a worse team then the wolves did at this point, Kings won only 6 games without him. 3 opf those were against the wolves/Lakers end of season when it was an absolute tankathon as well

He was damn hell an effective player, What are you on about?


Everyone but your blind self would say Demarcus when on the court and not giving away tech's or throwing a tantrum was a huge positive for the kings. Empty stats? Watch a bloody game

[brutalitops]

Name me a center would take the wolves to play off in the years besides the one when Jimmy was there.

Dont even think a prime Hakeem is dragging this lot to the finals

[soxfan2003]

Towns is about where I thought he would be as an NBA player. I didn't think he would be this good offensively but I expected more defense. That being said, I am on record as stating the Wolves should have traded Towns several years ago. He was once WILDLY overrated when he won a media poll among NBA gm's/executives/coaches as the young player most likely to win an MVP. Back then I had Towns having like a 0% chance to be a legit MVP. Towns isn't James Harden on offense so he was going to have to be very good defensively to deserve to be MVP.

It was already clear by then from my vantage point that Towns was a bad defender.

MN should have traded Towns before trading for his friend. I thought Wiggins would be better than what he has done so far in the NBA but I realized all along some of the problems with Wiggins defense is really on KAT and the MN coaching staff which played Wiggins too many minutes. If your center is bad defensively, tough for most wings to truly fix it. Even Jimmy Butler didn't fix the Wolves defense that much, Butler just made the offense even better.